Roadless Ping-Pong Returns: Chiefs’ Op-Ed and Some Thoughts From the Colorado Roadless Experience

by

 

Image
Just picking this one local roadless area, note that there is a separate roadless area on each side of the road. The visitors’ center gets 500K visitors per year, who go by road, trail or cog railway.  Does this count as “pristine” or “backcountry”?

There was an interesting op-ed in the Hill about roadless from four former Chiefs.

Since the 2001 Rule, it seems like there have been endless rounds of Roadless Ping-Pong.  There are two basic schools “2001 is sacred text” and “throw it out.” It seems like the only places where folks are happy with Roadlessness are Idaho and Colorado, which developed their own versions, based on the original 2001 Rule.  Once the lawsuits (by groups adhering to the Sacred Text view) were over, peace seems to have reigned in both states in the world of Roadless.  Even the Trump Admin “throw it out” folks are leaving Idaho and Colorado alone.

As a Colorado Rule veteran deep in the weeds, my view is that the 2001 was a big step forward. It got many things right.  But it could not foresee all the second-order effects and changes that would happen over 25 years, nor should we expect it to have done so.  What we did in Colorado was engage directly with the pros and cons and listened to people with all kinds of concerns.  In our case, we had a great deal of flexibility due to working with the State, which had the capacity to all kinds of things;  they had a Taskforce, they held meetings where each “side” invited scientists, and so on.  At the same time, it was way too much work for most, and most states didn’t have the will or capacity to engage in such an effort. The Colorado Rule was particularly troublesome to the “Sacred Text” folks because a D Governor and D President signed off on it.

So is there a rational path forward?  I’ve already outlined one here.

Did the Trump Admin throw out the idea of getting rid of the Roadless Rule to feed red meat to important supporters but ultimately step back to something reasonable (negotiating tactic?)  or to provide raw meat for ENGOs to focus on while they work on other efforts?  We don’t know.

What would have happened if Trump had not put the kibosh on the alternative the FS was working on in Alaska, post approval and litigation? We don’t know.

I do know that when you get down to specifics, at least in Colorado, there was a great deal of agreement, and even tightening up some restrictions, as well as fixing maps (getting rid of roaded roadless and putting in more unroaded roadless), in a way that lasted through D and R Admins at both the State and National level.  So there seem to be two levels going on… the specific changes level and the Sacred Text level.  And some outfits like Pew were very Sacred Text, while other like TRCP were more interested in specific changes.  So there is plenty of room to end this between the Sacred Text and the Get Rid of It schools, and it has been proven in Colorado and Idaho.  And the Roadless controversy there has been effectively put to bed.

Anyway, back to the Chiefs’ op-ed.  I understand that once the Admin served this round of Ping-Pong, the Chiefs feel they need to return the serve.  And yet.. we can imagine getting together a RACNAC like FACA committee, perhaps similar to the NWFP committee, that puts a national agreement together that most groups can live with.  Rather than return the serve, I would argue for changing the game.. to listening and finding common ground and yes, making some changes.

1. “adopted one of the boldest conservation measures in American history” I agree with this..I’ve probably told the story about during the 95 RPA program development, we proposed Roadlessness, but someone at Chief and Staff said “what about Alaska?” and that was the end of our proposal (I was an underling and Lyle Laverty was the lead).  So, indeed, it was bold to move forward from the position in the Draft 1995 RPA Program which was more or less “let the plan revisions handle it” and “don’t make up ASQs with timber from roadless areas” and “the Forest Service will increase the proportion of areas being managed to maintain their roadless character.”

At this point, the Chiefs’ op-ed goes into some top-down thinking, so I will add the bottom-up perspective.. see this post for an explanation.

2.   The National Forest System already contained 380,000 miles of roads, enough to wrap around the Earth about 15 times. Carving more roads into the remaining undisturbed forests didn’t make economic or ecological sense. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule would protect more than 58 million acres of National Forests from roadbuilding and logging, across 38 states and Puerto Rico.  

If there are too many roads, we need to figure out which ones are extra based on some criteria, environmental damage, affordability or whatever, which is also what the travel management rule tried to do (2005), The Travel Management FS website (weirdly found under “Science and Technology” go figure) say that now there are 371,000.  So maybe 9000 miles have been decommissioned, with no new ones? Current and historic permanent roads and motorized and nonmotorized trails by forest would be another useful entry into the Peoples’ Database.

But not all the forests were unroaded or “undisturbed,” because of mapping issues.  And some logging, is in fact, allowed as in 294. 12 and  13.  Since we don’t know how many areas were even “substantially altered” let alone how many other acres have had various tree-cutting (as we called it in Colorado) or road building based on the exceptions.. we don’t really know how many acres were “protected”.  It’s safe to say “intended to protect” but that’s not the same, is it?

3. “The Forest Service didn’t come to this decision alone. In fact, it facilitated the most extensive public involvement process in the history of public land management.” 

The lived experience of many (I was at OSTP then) was that the public involvement process had deficiencies.  Some people complained about their not being maps available.  Some felt the outcome was already determined.  As I recall, Wyoming’s request to be a cooperating agency was not accepted.   How is “extensive” measured? Easy to say, hard to quantify. In fact, Colorado’s process would be more extensive by any reasonable measurement (total number of meetings/comments per acre) including two DEISs (2008 and 2011) compared to one.  Perhaps the sentence would be accurate if it added “at the time.”

4.  “Each of us has had to strike the difficult balance between leaving some forests intact, while sustainably using others to benefit communities and economies.”

I think the idea of  “intactness” may have moved on based on climate change, recreation pressures, and wildfires.  Generally not allowing roads or tree-cutting is fine..and that’s the 2001 Rule.. but let’s not take credit for more than it is.  In Colorado, we found three major areas of improvement, ski areas, coal mines, fuel treatments, plus some other concerns for non-immanent collapse dam repair and roads to access existing powerlines for vegetation maintenance.  Note that “using to benefit” is not the same as “protection of infrastructure, water and soils from non-immanent floods and fire.” It’s not “use” vs. “protect” anymore.

5. Roadless areas are havens for wildlife, keeping habitats intact and free of industrial development.

Again, this is not always true. Roadless areas have powerlines and pipelines (even new buried ones, as the Bull Mountain case, a restriction that was tightened in Colorado).  The court found that a “linear construction zone” is not a road. And not to be too picky but as written with the “and, ” it seems to imply that habitats are intact if free of industrial development.  But other things like recreation or intense wildfire could conceivably interfere with “intactness” as well.

6.  The U.S. National Forests are the headwaters of our great rivers and the largest source of municipal water supply in the nation, serving over 60 million people in 3,400 communities in 33 states. The 2001 Roadless Rule is vital for maintaining clean drinking water for communities across the country. 

Conceivably then, without the 2001, and with the Colorado Roadless Rule (mostly) being in place since 2012,  the states downstream from Colorado should be currently suffering?

Colorado has 158 named rivers flowing through the state, with all but the Green and Cimarron Rivers having their headwaters within Colorado. These rivers flow either east towards the Atlantic or west towards the Pacific, depending on which side of the Continental Divide they originate. Furthermore, headwaters from Colorado’s eight major river basins provide water to nearly 6 million Coloradans, along with millions of others in 19 downstream states and Mexico. These waters support habitat, wildlife, recreation, food production, energy, industry, drinking water supplies, and more.

It should also be noted that water providers such as Denver Water, are big proponents of fuel treatments around their reservoirs, whether or not those are in Roadless, and whether or not any Roadless Rule hampers those efforts.

7.  Since the Admin framed it as being about timber, it is easy to say it’s about timber. and so the Timber Ping-Pong subset of Roadless Ping-Pong  continues…

Let’s not forget the reasons these backcountry areas do not have roads. The easily accessible high value timber from national forests has been harvested. What little that remains in these roadless backcountry areas is difficult and costly to access. The steep slopes, impacts to watersheds and lack of economical timber harvest and high cost of road building prevented these areas from even being considered for a road.  

If it wasn’t economic then, it’s still not economic, which cuts both ways… to my mind, pushing for timber sales and related roads there doesn’t work (does the Admin know that), and being afraid of too much timber and related roads is equally problematic (if you argue that it’s not economic).

8. Today’s National Forests don’t face the same challenges they did in 2001. But clearcutting old-growth in backcountry forests has never been a science-supported solution to the increasing threat of mega-fires across our National Forest System. 

Is the Admin proposing that, or is that a straw person?

I’ll just explain from my own experience in Colorado.

Clearcuts.. no one wants those except for dead trees (most likely lodgepole) next door to communities, which are probably already allowed under 2001 based on the exceptions- except for temp roads. At least that’s what TWS folks argued during CRR.

Old-growth… ???  Rescinding the Roadless Rule wouldn’t affect the forest plan, which already considers old growth.

Backcountry… not all IRAs are in “backcountry”.. some are on the sides of major roads.. some are in the backyards of subdivisions..

Science-supported ??? But again the Admin is not proposing “clearcutting old growth in backcountry forests.”

Increasing threat of megafires? As we have seen, increases in technology, bucks for fuel treatments and prescribed burning, and even aggressive initial attack are all activities that might decrease the threat of megafires.   At at the same time, in particular spots, shaded or other fuel breaks have been shown by “science” as well with experience to help with suppression. Are any places where preferred PODs of fuel breaks are limited by the 2001 Rule?  I don’t think we know that, and could only find out by listening to fuels folks on each forest.

************

The op-ed is written as a polemic in favor of keeping the  2001 Rule, but the bottom-up working on Roadless world looks much different than the top-down generalized statements.

 

Sierra-Sequoia Prescribed Burning EA and Some Objection Letters, Including “Untrammeling the Wilderness”

by
Image
A fire technician ignites a burn pile in the Big Stump area of Kings Canyon National Park along Highway 180 east of Fresno, California. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

The Sierra and Sequoia National Forests took an interesting and creative approach to project planning.  It makes sense for neighboring forests with similar landscape conditions to work together.  They did an EA and apparently tried to take the contentious stuff out… it’s for prescribed burning and the size of trees to be removed cannot exceed 12 inches.  The EA uses CBM which some people don’t like.  I think it’s particularly interesting because of the effort to optimize analysis of practices that are not particularly controversial.  So shout-out to them!

The objectors included Wilderness Watch, Sierra Club and Sequoia Forestkeepers, the John Muir Project and the Fire Restoration Group. Some of the objections were procedural and predictable, but others had interesting (and in one case) stunning things to say…

I thought a couple of the objection letters were interesting…I bolded the parts I found of particular interest.

From the John Muir Project:

Our objection could be resolved if either of the two conditions is met: a) an EIS is prepared; or b) the draft decisions are modified to allow prescribed fire, managed wildfire, and Indigenous cultural burning, but would not involve mechanical thinning of trees up to 12 inches in diameter as is currently proposed.As detailed in our EA comments and attachments, which we incorporate by reference here, the final EA violates NEPA, as amended by the Builder Act of 2023, by failing to take a hard look at the submitted science showing that no removal of trees–not even small trees–is needed before conducting burning, even in the densest and most long-unburned stands, and even in stands with high levels of dead wood. Fire behavior is fundamentally about fire weather, and burning can be safely conducted in any forest if burning is done in mild fire weather during the early or late part of fire season (June or Oct./Nov.). Moreover, the final EA violates NEPA by failing to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, especially a burn-only alternative (nomechanical thinning), and by failing to prepare an EIS.

 

“No removal of trees is ever needed before conducting burning.”  Technically I think this is true.   You can burn through a dense, dead stand without removing any trees. But there’s another goal.. most people would like some living trees at the end of the project.  Because if you lose them all you lose their carbon sequestering, the wildlife habitat, and the parent trees for future stands.  If you want to keep living trees, though, I’ve seen those stands.  No amount of  JMP “science” can make me favor their views over my own experience.  And I wonder about a process that makes federal employees take time to write a rebuttal, plus federal judges to consider it. Maybe, just maybe,  there are more useful activities that feds and judges and OGC and DOJ could be doing.

Apparently the use of PF in Wilderness is an issue.  I thought these comments by folks at the Fire Restoration Group were interesting… of course the link to the research paper in the letter didn’t work because of the FS website conversion, so here it is.

Abstract: Historical and contemporary policies and practices, including the suppression of lightning-ignited fires and the removal of intentional fires ignited by Indigenous peoples, have resulted in over a century of fire exclusion across many of the USA’s landscapes. Within many designated wilderness areas, this intentional exclusion of fire has clearly altered ecological processes and thus constitutes a fundamental and ubiquitous act of trammeling. Through a framework that recognizes four orders of trammeling, we demonstrate the substantial, long-term, and negative effects of fire exclusion on the natural conditions of fire-adapted wilderness ecosystems. In order to untrammel more than a century of fire exclusion, the implementation of active programs of intentional burning may be necessary across some wilderness landscapes. We also suggest greater recognition and accommodation of Indigenous cultural burning, a practice which Tribes used to shape and maintain many fire-adapted landscapes for thousands of years before Euro-American colonization, including landscapes today designated as wilderness.

Human-ignited fire may be critical to restoring the natural character of fire-adapted wilderness landscapes and can also support ecocultural restoration efforts sought by Indigenous peoples. In the DEA page. 77 states, “The existing risk of high-severity wildfires would persist on the landscape and fire suppression and its associated activities, departure of vegetation communities from natural fire regimes, and the potential effects of damaging wildfire would continue to degrade the untrammeled, natural, and undeveloped qualities of wilderness character as described below.”

Remedy: Basically, asserting in Boerigter et al. 2024, that POLICY can also trammel wilderness values, not just bulldozers. While the 1964 Wilderness Act went out of its way to call out the “hand of man” as in many cases damaging to pristine wilderness values, what it failed to consider is that “man” (Tribal men, women, and children) have been living in, traveling through, and actively burning in these wilderness landscapes for thousands of years.
Finally, the 1964 Wilderness Act allows for full suppression in Wilderness Areas, including significant dozer fire line construction, but somehow that action is acceptable, where planned, restorative fire that is a key part of wilderness ecological function and integrity is not-it makes no sense. As long as the planned fire use follows minimum impact strategies you are increasing resilience, ecological integrity, biodiversity enhancement and key wilderness values, i.e., a naturally functioning ecosystem. Point out this incongruency directly and more assertively.

An interesting thought.. “policy can also trammel wilderness values.” I’m not a Wilderness person, but I’d guess that there may be a tension between different sets of Wilderness values.

Here’s Wilderness Watch’s Take Action.

Bottom-Up Vs. Top-Down Ways of Perceiving the World and Our Discussions

by

Back in 2010, when the 2012 Planning Rule was being developed, I wrote a piece here “Talking Across the Concrete-Abstract Divide.” The comments, by folks like Andy Stahl, John Rupe and Lynn Jungwirth are worth going back to.

Last week, I was talking with my spiritual coach and she expressed it differently.. she said “you see the world from the bottom-up ” rather than  “top-down.” In the sense that I understand the  world based on my observations and building from there, as opposed to seeing “the big picture.” She said she could see this in teams, and even in families.  Some of this could be tied to Jung via Myers-Briggs types; or even neurodiversity of various kinds. I’m sure there is a philosopher or psychologist who has understood this and written about it.

It’s easy to imagine how annoying the different types could be to each other.  Bottom-up thinkers could be seen as picky and pedantic, as in “can’t see the forest for the trees.”  Top-down thinkers could be seen as generalizing to the point of meaninglessness.  Think of “global temperature averages”.. an average is not actually true or meaningful to plants and animals anywhere.  At the same time, we complement each other. As an evolutionary biologist, I think that different ways of thinking within a tribe must have an evolutionary advantage, and that we can, in fact,  get closer to the truth by considering both points of view.

In our world, sometimes someone has a generic statement. Say “it is unlikely that logging to control fire will interact with wildfire” or “commercial logging inherently has greater impacts on environmental values like habitat and soils.” I just naturally go to “then how come we see frequently stories like this?” Or “why does it seem like folks are using the same equipment on non-commercial projects (almost all, where I live)? What equipment are you talking about exactly? What if you rip skid trails, does that still count?

I like to place the generalizations “in conversation” as they say, nowadays, with the lived experience in specific places with specific practices and tools  of myself and others.  And words matter.. you could say I am “challenging” (seems unnecessarily adversarial) or the more gentle “questioning.”  I prefer the more even-handed “let’s place these two perspectives in conversation.”

We of the bottom-up persuasion of have predictable questions to the generic statements.   How do you know this? What information are you using and how did you acquire it? Sadly, it seems like often there is no forum for having these kinds of discussions. And it’s not just forest world… in religion world, it’s the difference between theologians and social scientists of religion. For example, what do say, Catholics believe about topic x. You could ask the Pope what they’re supposed to think. You could ask scholars at universities to give their opinions (probably based on their diverse own experiences). Or you could ask social scientists to conduct a survey asking those specific questions.  You’re likely to get different answers from any of those approaches.

I realize that what I think of as being helpful “hey, that’s not always the case, perhaps you could say this instead” is not always seen to be helpful by superiors, employees, peers, and readers of TSW.

Let’s look at a few more of these..

  • The Assistant Director at Rocky Mountain Station who claimed that if we studied “systems,” we wouldn’t need research about organisms.
  • Sitting around the table at a RO meeting with some profs at University of Colorado. They kept talking about “fuel treatments in the backcountry” I asked them to name one specifically so we could look at the purpose and need and take the discussion deeper. Our Chief of Staff signaled to me to keep quiet. I guess her idea was that if we didn’t challenge them, they might like us more. I don’t think that has actually worked that way.

In both of the above examples, there is a perceived power imbalance which can make it difficult to have an open dialogue.

  • Objections.. what do we know about them? “it’s an important part of public involvement” vs. “what can we learn about how they are working in practice by looking at who objects and what value is or is not added?”

I’ve seen many situations in which either the structure doesn’t exist to have these discussions, or folks think it’s potentially bad for relationships to have the conversations.  In my view, these same convos  might lead us to a deeper place of understanding of why we view things differently and in fact a greater appreciation for each other.  More conversation, less “othering” as they say nowadays.

In my case, I show respect precisely by engaging (your views matter to me!) rather than letting generalizations go unquestioned.  So I hope that my bottom-up kinds of comments and clarifications are taken in that spirit.

 

 

 

New USDA oil and Gas Leasing Rule

by

Image
I don’t know how this relates to the new rule.
Here’s the press release:

(Washington, D.C., January 27, 2026) — The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service finalized revisions to its regulation governing federal oil and gas resources on National Forest System lands. The revision modernizes and streamlines the process for managing energy development across millions of acres.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced the updated rule today, emphasizing the Trump Administration’s joint commitment to eliminating outdated and burdensome processes and advancing President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Orders on Declaring a National Energy Emergency and Unleashing American Energy.

“President Trump has made it clear that unleashing American energy requires a government that works at the speed of the American people, not one slowed by bureaucratic red tape,” said Secretary Brooke Rollins. “This rule gives energy producers the certainty they need to expand supply to make energy more affordable, create jobs, and ensure America remains the dominant force in global energy markets – all while safeguarding forests and communities. Energy security is national security. These revisions create clarity and alignment across federal agencies, allowing our teams to move swiftly on leasing and permitting so American families and businesses can rely on affordable, dependable energy, while continuing to be good stewards of our public lands.”

“We are replacing the Biden administration’s bureaucratic delays with American innovation and efficiency,” said Secretary Doug Burgum. “These new rules provide the certainty needed to boost production, slash energy costs, and guarantee our global leadership. By streamlining permitting and cutting bureaucracy, we are lowering costs for families, creating jobs, and securing our nation all while protecting our public lands.”

The final rule (36 CFR 228 Subpart E), now published in the Federal Register, updates and simplifies federal oil and gas leasing procedures, allowing the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to seamlessly coordinate when issuing permits. By establishing a single, clearly defined leasing decision point and reducing duplicative analysis, the rule improves response times to industry requests, helps reduce longstanding backlogs, accelerates lease issuance, and supports the timely processing of applications for permits to drill.

Under federal law, the Forest Service manages the surface estate of National Forest System lands, while the BLM manages the subsurface mineral estate. The two agencies work together to develop permitting conditions under their respective authorities.

Currently, 5,154 federal oil and gas leases cover approximately 3.8 million acres (about 2%) of National Forest System lands. Of these, roughly 2,850 leases spanning 1.8 million acres across 39 national forests and grasslands contain producing federal oil or gas wells.

I think there’s probably at least.. 100  people in the universe who understand the differences from current regulations and practice.  From law firms of various ilks, industry and current and retired minerals folks in BLM and the FS.  I’d welcome guest posts from either “side”. or in the middle.. Apparently the Admin went back to the comments from a previous  ANPR (2018) and 2020 Proposed Rule.

Stated reasons for general support of the rule include the generation of revenue,  large existing demands for oil and gas, decreases in regulatory burden on the oil and gas industry, promotion of domestic energy production, the creation of a simplified process leading to quicker leasing decisions, and the elimination of duplication with the BLM.
Public comments received in response to the ANPR can be found on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket ID: FS-2018-0053. Responses to the ANPR were considered during preparation of the proposed rule, which was published on September 1, 2020 (FR Doc. 2020-18518) and opened a 60-day comment period. The public submitted nearly 80,000 comments during the 60-day comment period.
Approximately 99.5 percent (79,180) of the comments received were form letters collected by conservation organizations. Only 439 unique, substantive comments or letters were submitted. These comments were from unaffiliated private citizens, State agencies, counties, Alaska Native Corporations, Tribal agencies, oil and gas owners and operators, environmental groups, and business associations.
All the form letters and most of the unique comments expressed opposition at some level, whether to oil and gas development in general or to oil and gas development on National Forest System lands in particular, or to the proposed revisions to 36 CFR Part 228 Subpart E or to the rulemaking process itself.
Supportive comments generally applauded the Forest Service’s efforts to improve clarity and efficiency in the leasing analysis and consent decision procedures, reduce redundancies in permitting, improve coordination with the BLM, and update procedures addressing noncompliance situations. Some supportive comments suggested specific edits to regulation text to help improve the efficiency of the process or the clarity of regulatory intent.
A detailed discussion of comments and our responses is contained in the “Summary of and Response to Public Comments” section.

I went back to the comments on regulations.gov.  I couldn’t find anything for “alaska native”. It would be handy if a) the search engine  in regulations.gov worked better and/or b) you could click a button to ask for only unique substantive comments.  I’ve been told I could do that if I download them all into an excel spreadsheet, but really, is that so difficult in this day and age for the USG to do it?

Federal Lands Litigation – update through January 23, 2026

by

Image

FOREST SERVICE

Court decision in Incline Ranch v. U. S. A. (D. Montana)

On November 24, the district court ruled against the new owner of property at the end of a Forest Service road who had sued the federal government in an attempt to limit parking and winter access despite a documented public easement.  The court found that Forest Service maps have depicted Skunk Creek Road as open to public use, and it had been used, for decades, and therefore the landowner’s challenge was barred under the Quiet Title Act’s 12-year statute of limitations.  The court found similarly with regard to a gate placed on Plaintiff’s property by the Forest Service and the agency’s right to regulate snowplowing and road maintenance.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

Court decision in Wilkins v. U. S. A. (9th Cir.)

On December 29, after a remand from the Supreme Court described here, the 9th Circuit again held that the 12-year Quiet Title Act statute of limitations had run on plaintiffs’ claims seeking to quiet title on properties that they acquired in 1991 and 2004 because the long history of public use of the 1962 easement triggered the limitation period much earlier than 2006 (the lawsuit was filed in 2018).  Plaintiffs had argued that the easement did not authorize general public use, which was affecting plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property.  The link includes a longer summary and the court’s opinion.  If you’re interested in the plaintiffs’ opinion of the opinion, look here.

New lawsuit

On January 2, a resident of Jackson, Wyoming, sued the Bridger-Teton National Forest and a local housing trust over plans for an affordable housing development on national forest land near a popular trailhead.  The Forest Supervisor approved a special use permit for the housing trust that expires in 2054.  Thirteen units at the proposed 36-unit development are set to house Forest Service employees. The remaining 23 units are set to be split up between Town of Jackson employees, an unnamed nonprofit, qualified community members through the Housing Trust’s stock and, potentially, county employees.  The plaintiff is an attorney who lives on the road that provides access.

Court decision in Oregon Wild v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Oregon)

On January 13, the district court invalidated and vacated the Forest Service categorical exclusion CE-6: “[t]imber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities that do not include the use of herbicides or do not require more than 1 mile of low standard road construction.”  The CE includes no acreage limit, and this issue was raised in the context of three projects on the Fremont-Winema National Forest that had authorized 29,000 acres of commercial thinning.  The court found that the record it reviewed did not explain how an unlimited amount of commercial thinning would categorically not have significant environmental impacts.  According to the court, “an agency’s bare assertion that its decision is informed by its experience and expertise is not a substitute for explaining the basis of its decision.” The article includes a link to the opinion.   We’ve discussed this further here, and this article discussed there included a link to the opinion.

This case was remanded by the 9th Circuit to the district court to determine if plaintiffs had filed the lawsuit within the 6-year statute of limitations period, from when they knew or should have known they were injured by the CE.  Oregon Wild did not meet this requirement because they had been involved in a similar case using CE-6 in 2006. However, there was no evidence that WildEarth Guardians was affected prior to this case, and GO Alliance was formed in 2020, so could not have been harmed before that.

BLM

Court decision in Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Utah)

On December 19, the district court determined that the BLM’s decision to end a Master Leasing Plan for the area was a procedural change, and didn’t trigger the need to conduct another environmental review.  As a result, the BLM can renew oil and gas leases near the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness and Canyonlands National Park without such reviews.  (An actual court opinion was not reviewed; an AI summary was.)

New lawsuit:  Renew Northeast v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. Massachusetts)

On December 23, eight organizations supporting renewable energy sued the Department of the Interior and agencies including the BLM, as well as the Army Corps of Engineers with regard to several policies that make development of renewable energy more difficult, including what they describe as a “political review bottleneck.”  Specific to the BLM is its “capacity-density mandate” for wind and solar projects on federal lands, which requires the agency to evaluate whether a project is an “efficient” use of land based on energy output per acre.

Settlement in Alaska v. U. S. A. (D. Alaska)

On December 29, the federal government disclaimed any interest in the submerged lands and bed of the North Fork of the Fortymile River.  The Bureau of Land Management had previously classified the portions of the Fortymile River as non-navigable and therefore owned by the federal government, but Alaska sued the federal government in 2018, arguing that it is navigable.  The Trump Administration had issued an executive order to review the navigability of Alaska waterways.  Alaska now has jurisdiction over hunting and fishing for subsistence, they can authorize activities in that submerged land, like mining, in an area where gold has been found.  The article includes a link to the disclaimer.

New lawsuit:  The Wilderness Society v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. D.C.)

On January 6, Advocates for the West filed a lawsuit for the Wilderness Society seeking to compel the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to release records related to a March 2025 DOI-HUD joint task force targeting the sale of public lands for private development and housing.  The records were requested in July 2025. BLM responded by stating it had no responsive records despite the agency’s public acknowledgment of its role in evaluating land sales.  The case information includes a link to the complaint under “case filings.”

New lawsuit:  Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. James (D. Montana)

On January 12, four conservation groups sued the BLM for authorizing “vegetation management treatments,” including prescribed fires, mechanical tree removal, herbicide spraying and “intensive targeted grazing,” on up to 10,000 acres per year throughout the 905,000 acres managed by its Dillon Montana Field Office, “without any further opportunity for public comment.”  According to the complaint, “The Project applies ‘condition-based management’ in a way that undermines informed decision-making and meaningful public participation in violation of NEPA and FLPMA.”  The Project allegedly violates NEPA due to lack of information about effects, effects on special status species, cumulative effects, failure to consider reducing grazing, and failure to prepare an EIS.  The alleged FLPMA violations are failure to comply with RMP provisions for sage grouse and big game winter habitat.  The complaint is here.

Amended complaint

On January 13, the Gwich’in Steering Committee and twelve conservation groups renewed litigation to block the federal government’s oil and gas leasing program on the coastal plain of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  The original lawsuit was filed in 2020 over that Trump Administration’s requirement for two oil and gas lease sales for the area.  The lawsuit now seeks to vacate seven leases that had been cancelled by the Biden Administration and reinstated by Trump.  It involves competing interests of native Gwich’in and Inupiat people who would like to protect the caribou and provide economic development, respectively.

Court decision in Friends of Animals v. Burgum (9th Circuit)

On January 14, the circuit court affirmed the district court and found that an EA for construction and operation of a corral to hold 4,000 wild horses was adequate.  The court found it reasonable to take into account the mitigation effect of the BLM’s animal welfare guidelines to avoid floods, and provide adequate shade and shelter for sick or weak animals, among other things.  The court could not disagree with BLM’s determination of what practices are necessary for humane treatment.  The court found compliance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, which requires the BLM to protect and manage wild free-roaming horses and burros as components of the public lands, and that excess animals be humanely captured and removed for private maintenance and care. The article includes a link to the opinion.

IBLA decision

On January 15, the Interior Board of Land Appeals found that the BLM violated the Clean Air Act in 2018 when it approved drilling for oil and gas in the Normally Pressured Lance field, one of Wyoming’s largest, affecting 3500 potential gas wells.  They upheld an administrative appeal by WildEarth Guardians, and vacated the decision, explaining that it was not supported by a valid Clean Air Act conformity determination because it violated regulations governing ground-level ozone, a human health hazard.  While the project is ongoing, few wells have actually been drilled.  This represents the final agency action, in the case which could then be challenged in court.  Previous litigation over sage grouse and pronghorns had been decided in BLM’s favor.  The article includes a link to the two judges’ decision.

New lawsuit:  Cascadia Wildlands v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (D. Oregon)

On January 21, Cascadia Wildlands, Oregon Wild and Umpqua Watersheds filed a lawsuit against the BLM for authorizing the 42 Divide Forest Management Plan, a multi-decade series of logging projects set for nearly 7,000 acres of public lands found in checkerboard ownership with private lands.  Plaintiffs challenge the portions of the project that target mature and old-growth forests in protected late successional reserves.  “Plaintiffs’ field data shows that, in many of the proposed logging units, the information [Bureau of Land Management] provided in its NEPA documents does not match the facts on the ground, especially regarding the baseline conditions of forest stands,” the conservation groups wrote in the complaint.  Plus, the groups say the project conflicts with the agency’s own stated management objective to conserve and recover Endangered Species Act-listed species and their habitats, including federally protected northern spotted owls, marbled murrelets, Oregon Coast coho salmon, as well as BLM-designated sensitive species western pond turtles.  They allege violations of the Resource Management Plan (FLPMA) and NEPA.  This blog post includes the complaint.

Amended complaint in Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Trump (D. Alaska)

Ten organizations filed an amended and supplemental complaint against the Ambler Road, a 200-mile gravel road crossing the Gates of the Arctic National Preserve.  The lawsuit began in 2020, was paused pending additional analysis, and the permit was then denied in 2024 by the BLM, but the Trump Administration reinstated the decision in 2025.  The supplemental complaint argues that the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Army Corps of Engineers and President Trump broke numerous laws, including the Alaska National Interest Lands Claims Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.  The website includes a link to the complaint.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

New lawsuit:  Friends of the Bitterroot v. Burgum (D. Montana)

On January 14, fifteen plaintiffs, mostly from Montana, alleged that the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to meet its deadline to designate critical habitat for the wolverine.  The species was listed as threatened in November 2023, and the law allows up to two years to make a decision on critical habitat.  It’s estimated that 95% of wolverine habitat is managed by the Forest Service in the mountain ranges of Montana, Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, and northern New Mexico.  The article summarizes the history of efforts to protect the wolverine, starting with a petition to list it in 2000.  The complaint is here.

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. D.C.)

On January 15, the Center sought to protect more than a half-million acres of critical habitat for the endangered southern Sierra Nevada fisher (another species with a long history of legal protection efforts).  In this case the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to designate critical habitat in 2021 and 2022, but has not yet finalized a decision (which should generally have occurred within two years).   Fishers depend on features found in old-growth forests such as tree cavities and downed wood.  The news release includes a link to the complaint.

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Arizona)

Also on January 15, the Center sued the Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to make a listing proposal within one year after determining the yellow-spotted woodland salamander may warrant listing.  The species, which is found in shale and sandstone rock faces in Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, was only recently found to be a distinct species and may only number about 300 individuals, mostly on private lands.  However, the listing petition does implicate the Forest Service:  “Unfortunately, the National Forest Management Act and the 2012 Planning Rule are inadequate for the conservation of the yellow-spotted woodland salamander because only one P. pauleyi site occurs in a national forest.  The site in Jefferson National Forest contains only a single known individual…  In addition, P. pauleyi on national forest lands remain vulnerable to the impacts of timber harvests, mining, pipelines, oil and gas drilling, and road construction, which are all permitted in the Jefferson National Forest.”  The species is threatened primarily by mountain top removal for coal mining.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

OTHER

Court decision in Malheur Forest Fairness Coalition v. Iron Triangle, LLC (9th Circuit)

On January 13, the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an antitrust action by several entities alleging that Iron Triangle, LLC, and other industry defendants engaged in monopolization and restraint of trade, in violation of Sherman Act §§ 2 and 1, related to the acquisition and processing of timber on both private timberland and the Malheur National Forest.  The opinion includes a more detailed summary of the transactions in question.

New lawsuit (N.D. California)

The Sierra Club has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of the Interior for failing to provide requested records related to a secretarial order that required a review of signage, websites, and other language at national parks and other sites under Interior’s jurisdiction to ensure they did not contain “descriptions, depictions, or other content that inappropriately disparage Americans past or living.”  The requests were submitted July 31, 2025.  The BLM and Bureau of Reclamation have provided information.

 

FS Working With States: Share Your (Good and Bad) Experiences

by

As became clear by Human Assisted AI in yesterday’s comments, it seems like there are quite a few Forest and Grassland organizations that cross State lines.  I thought I’d share some of my experiences with that.

My Stories

The Fremont and Winema (separate, when I was there) vs. neigbhoring R-5 forests.  Timber (as a geneticist, that was my department) was vastly different between the Fremont and the Modoc. This was the 80’s. Not sure exactly why, but we had many more roads and our reforestation and tree improvement programs were more substantial.  My first mentor was a fellow named John Nesbitt,  who told me there were two pieces of info I needed to know for my new job.   First he drew a forest with a crown on it.. “in Region 6, timber is king”; then he drew a map of the Region and pointed out how far we were from the RO “the RO exists but it’s very far away.”  Was the difference simply due to investment priorities of folks in San Fran (then) and Portland? Or due to real value differences of people in Alturas versus Lakeview? Hard to tell.  Of course the 80’s were almost 50 years ago..

Region 2

So at one time (not suprisingly) the R-4 planning director and I did not share views on how plan revisions should be conducted.  This wouldn’t have mattered except the BT is in Wyoming and so is the Shoshone. In fact, they are adjacent.  If there’s anything worse than plan revisions, it would be having to deal with two RO’s with different worldviews in the same state, at close to the same time.  Sure we could have “coordinated” better, I guess, but my peer didn’t seem amenable to that.

I remember the Governor of Wyoming had an annual meeting at the time with all the Forest Supes.  At the one I attended, he quizzed them all on projects they were working on with the State.  Certainly that wouldn’t have happened in California or Colorado.

We used to have “State coordinators” which were positions intended to coordinate with each State and they worked well.. except sometimes there was tension because the Supes wanted their own relationships with key people in the State.  Then we also had states without state coordinators, where it seemed like the Supe (South Dakota) or the Ranger (Cimarron Grassland) also dealt with the State (Kansas).

Now, you may wonder how the national forest folks in those states worked with the R&D and State and Tribal Forestry folks.. (along the lines of Michael Rains’ ideas of One Forest Service) and the answer is… I don’t know.

*******

What are your stories about working with different States? What worked well and what didn’t?

WGA on Forest Service Reorganization: What Do You Think of State Directors? And Their View of SSAs

by

Image

 

I’m always on the lookout for partisan views submerged under the media sea of  our policy issues.  One place I look for a nonpartisan view is the Western Governors Association (WGA).  They have to agree across partisan divides, and (in my view) tend to be more pragmatic about solutions than national figures, perhaps based on their direct experience with managing agencies, finding common ground and trade-offs within the state, and the complex world of implementation.

Here’s  a letter of theirs to Secretary Brooke Rollins on USDA Reorganization.

Regarding the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the elimination of the regional offices could result in a substantial communication gap between the agency and its partners, who play an increasingly important role in collaborative forest management and shared stewardship agreement implementation. Western Governors encourage you to consider establishing state directors, replicating the model employed by USDA-RD, FSA, and NRCS. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) also uses this model, and its efficacy is proven. BLM maintains state directors in nine separate western states, two shared state directors for five western states, and one director for eastern states. Establishing a state director framework for USFS would ensure strong communication between the agency and states and promote improved collaboration on forest and rangeland management, recreational use, and wildfire mitigation and response. It would also provide a strong local resource for coordinating activities under the Shared Stewardship Agreements executed between states and the USDA.

It does seem fairly rational to have the same structure as other USDA and land management agencies.. seems like it would help use federal funds jointly better if all the relevant State Directors of the different Fed Agencies met and coordinated, which would conceivably be more easy on them, and on the States themselves. Think EPA, prescribed fire, state responsibilities for the Clean Air Act and state and fed (Interior and USDA)  responsibilities for prescribed fire. It might also facilitate better coordination with Tribes.

My own experience on our joint RMP/Forest Plan effort (major windmill tilt)  was that the State Director approach worked pretty well.  Of course, if they’re SES, that would be 12 field SES for that level instead of 9.  What do you all think, especially those of you who have worked in both the BLM and FS?

*****************

Here’s what WGA says about SSAs (Shared Stewardship Agreements)  in WGA Policy Resolution 2024-02..

Western Governors point to the Western Governors’ Association (WGA) – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Shared Stewardship Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as an example of an effective framework to establish shared state-federal priorities for forest and rangeland management and encourage the development of similar MOUs with other Executive Branch agencies for other areas of natural resource management.
4. Effective forest and rangeland management is only possible through coordination between federal, state, local, and tribal land management agencies. These agencies should strive to find new ways to collaborate on forest and rangeland management projects, as well as to explore ways to improve state-federal coordination on existing management projects. Shared Stewardship Agreements between states and USDA are a good example.

Note that the point of MOUs came up in this meeting during the previous Admin, when a new MOU with USDA was signed in 2024..

“I will forgive you if you say, ‘okay, what’s the point of another MOU?’” Deputy Secretary Torres Small said. “But the one we signed today will… mark a new beginning for better integration when it comes to how forest and rangeland restoration projects are prioritized across different land ownerships. It creates new opportunities for us to work more closely with you on important issues, such as expanding rural high-speed internet and enhancing our support for farming and ranching communities.”

Forest Supe Meeting Round-Up: What Have You Heard?

by

Here’s what Deputy Chief John Crockett had to say about the meeting:Image

*******************

Perhaps the most important component of creating a shared understanding among many is building community. Last week, that’s exactly what we accomplished at the National Active Forest Management Meeting.

The meeting’s objectives included giving line officers an overview of agency priorities for increasing timber production and reducing wildfire risk, creating a shared understanding of success, and exploring approaches and tools for achieving management goals.

For the first time in 25 years, forest supervisors were together on site to hear directly from agency leaders as a cohort. They were then given the opportunity to participate in small group discussions with leadership. The meeting also incorporated partner perspectives by bringing in representatives from the National Forest Foundation and Society of American Foresters, among others. Topics covered ranged from understanding updated guidance provided by executive orders and memos, to achieving multiple mission objectives while prioritizing timber, and encouraging partner participation in the National Active Forest Management Strategy.

None of these objectives could be met without a foundation of trust, and that trust was built through the week’s practical, solution-focused panels. Panelists highlighted specific projects, steps they took to deliver results on time and on budget, and lessons learned. Attendees asked targeted questions, compared approaches, and shared field-tested practices.

We heard from many attendees that listening and learning from one another across disciplines was key. As White Mountain National Forest Supervisor Derek Ibarguen noted, seeing “how different people have innovated to tackle projects was inspiring,” but equally important to him was learning whom he could call for assistance.

Eli Ilano, Deputy Director of Natural Resources, felt that peer learning had a positive effect—”instead of lectures, people were able to engage with one another both formally and informally” to build networks. He noted that informal sharing helped people see their commonalities, an idea echoed by Scott Tangenberg, Acting Forest Supervisor for Cleveland National Forest. Tangenberg felt that those who may have begun the week thinking their forest challenges were unique began to realize there was more that united them than separated them.

Throughout the week, discussions allowed us to align around our fiscal year 2026 agency priorities, which Chief Schultz announced in last Friday’s Inside the Forest Service. There, participants discussed approaches and were given practical tools for improving efficiencies for timber harvesting, permitting, post-fire recovery and shared stewardship. Foundational to the week’s success was its format and topics. Discussions were led by panels that coupled line officers with subject matter experts and provided specific, distinct perspectives on myriad topics. Participants also split into small groups for breakout sessions, rotating from one session to the next so that each participant learned about each topic.

While talks centered on our agency priorities, other themes that emerged from the week included the need to strengthen shared stewardship, focus on the day-to-day services we provide the public, and address fuels, grazing, and other challenges directly. We aim to lead through transition by staying engaged and helping our teams navigate change, empowering employees, and modeling accountability by demonstrating effective leadership through partnership and follow-through. We also commit to achieving results and building relationships—fostering trust inside the agency and with the people we serve, while supporting one another as a community of leaders.

More importantly, I believe this week was just the first step. As one participant said, “Building communities of practice is critical to success.” We will continue to develop this community by offering ongoing opportunities to engage with one another, both formally and informally, on topics affecting the agency and its people.

We built a shared understanding of current priorities last week. Now, we want people to implement them on the ground and share what works. The meeting organizers intend to solicit feedback from participants to allow for continued discussion and the development of future sessions.

I’ll close with what Chris French said when asked for a quote about this event: “Long overdue and inspiring.” I hope this is the first of many such events that build a shared understanding of our agency’s future.

**********

I’ve heard some things as translated from Supes to others.. nothing too different from what we have been hearing.  I’d be interested in what others have gotten through the grapevine.. each person has different experiences and focuses on different things, and that’s just the attendee, not the people listening to what the Supes coming back have to say.

So it’s a bit like the game of telephone but nevertheless…

Draft Vegetation Categorical Exclusion List with Names: Plus Sierra NF Gigantea CE Example

by

Image

As far as I know,  this is the current list of CEs (the last perhaps adopted from the BLM?).   It is confusing to talk about them (and the numbers have changed), so I have given them names. See if you like the names,  or would prefer other ones.

Is the list complete? I seem to remember that some insect and disease ones (13 and 14?) once existed.  I’d like to keep a complete list and keep it updated so we would be all operating from the same set of information.

If your organization (including the FS) has your own list, please send or link below.

***************

I’d like to give a shout-out to the Sierra National Forest for one of the most extensive CE public involvement processes (HFRA 605)  I’ve ever read of for the Gigantea Fuels Reduction and Restoration Project (photo above). The below is from the (32 page) DM. And there’s a separate (27 page) response to comments, with about six pages of scientific citations. It seems to me that, say, if they had used an EA, and the John Muir Project had provided an objection, the context of the discussion would not be all that different from the original public comment.

SCOPING AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
In 2022, scoping for the Sierra National Forest Emergency Giant Sequoia Fuel Reduction Project
initiated the environmental review process for treatments in both Nelder Grove and McKinley
Grove. Scoping to the public began November 8, 2022, with multiple stakeholders and interested
parties invited to collaborate in the planning phase of the Sierra National Forest Emergency
Giant Sequoia Fuel Reduction Project. One scoping response related to the Gigantea Project was
received from SFL with a subsequent meeting held to address concerns raised (see above.)
In early 2023 a decision was made to analyze the two sequoia groves in different project
documents and therefore the Sierra National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions entry for the
Sierra National Forest Emergency Giant Sequoia Fuel Reduction Project was canceled and
replaced with two new projects. Two separate processes continued, one for the Nelder giant
sequoia grove (that used the July 2022 Emergency Response Authorization (USDA Forest
Service. 2022b)) and another, this separate process for the McKinley Giant Sequoia Grove. This
project is listed as “Gigantea Fuels Reduction and Restoration Project” in the Sierra National
Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions, where it has been updated periodically. Due to increases in
the scale of the Gigantea Project and its activities, a second scoping took place between
December 21, 2023, and January 22, 2024. Response to the second scoping was more robust
with six comments received from seven institutions. Fresno County Board of Supervisors,
Stewards of the Sierra National Forest, California Four Wheel Drive Association Sierra Forest
Legacy, and the John Muir Project submitted comments before January 22, 2024. The former
four institutions expressed support for project actions to reduce fuel loading, accomplish
landscape restoration, and reduce wildfire risk for people and nature (including the McKinley
grove). The latter, John Muir Project, was opposed to the project.

The comments received included but were not limited to the following issues: 1) protection of
road and trails during project activities; 2) keeping temporary roads that are constructed during
the project open after the project; 3) ensuring adequate protection of sensitive resources
(including threatened and endangered species, their habitat, and Sierra National Forest sensitive
species/species of conservation concern), and archaeological site/historic/cultural properties).
Sierra Forest Legacy was concerned that the project does not impact sensitive resources to the
point where extraordinary circumstances would arise, necessitating an Environmental
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement. These comments were all reviewed, considered,
and addressed in a document titled Consideration of Scoping Comments (USDA Forest Service
2024a). Where appropriate, their constructive suggestions have been assimilated in the project’s
proposed actions (including the design criteria developed to protect sensitive resources). Roads
and trails will be protected, as will all categories of sensitive resources. Taking into consideration
the comments that we received, the project’s design criteria to protect sensitive resources, and
our formal consultation with the USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024), I have
determined that the project will not generate Extraordinary Circumstances.
Subsequently, John Muir Project, Sierra Club Tehipite Chapter, and Sequoia Forest Keepers
(JMP et al.) submitted a collective letter January 26, 2024, opposed to the project. The comments
received from the John Muir Project singly, and then collectively with the Sierra Club and
Sequoia Forest Keepers expressed concerns about a large number of issues that included but
were not limited to the following: 1) the status of the Categorical Exclusion and compliance with
its terms/requirements: 2) adherence to current Forest Service old growth forest protection
Gigantea Fuels Reduction and Restoration Project policy; 3) potential impacts to Pacific fisher and California spotted owl; 4) the commenters’
issues with Forest Service interpretations of giant sequoia fire ecology and management; and 5)
the commenters’ issues with fuels reduction and restoration projects. These commenter’s
expressed assertions that included but were not limited to the following: a) the Categorical
Exclusion we were considering had expired: b) thinning increases fire severity; c) higher-density
closed canopy forests are less prone to severe fire than semi-open canopies; d) tree removal is
not necessary prior to conducting prescribed burns: and e) commercial thinning and post-fire
logging/clearcutting makes wildfires spread fast and/or burn more severely, and this puts nearby
communities at risk. We carefully reviewed all the comments and reviewed the best available
science for each issue raised. We also reviewed the status of the Categorical Exclusion with the
Washington office of the USFS and established that it is current. The record of our review and
consideration of the range of issues raised by the JMP et al. can be found in the document titled
Consideration of Scoping Comments (USDA Forest Service 2024a).

 

‘Train Dreams’ is an ode to the lonely labor of forestry

by

High Country News essay. First paragraph:

“I first read Denis Johnson’s novella Train Dreams outside, leaning against a tree. It was 2019, and my Forest Service trail crew was camped out in a quiet corner of Washington’s Alpine Lakes Wilderness, clearing the Jack Creek trail through a two-year-old burn. In the evenings, after I’d rinsed the grime off in a shallow creek, I savored Johnson’s descriptions of the rough and lonely life of his protagonist, Robert Grainier, a logging-crew laborer in Washington’s forests a hundred years ago.”